Analysis Of Lao Tzu And Machiavelli's The Quality Of Prince

In Lao Tzu’s ‘‘Thought from the Tao-te Ching’’and Machiavelli’s ‘‘The Quality of prince’’, they both develop how an outstanding ruler should be by striking a balance between the people and the ruler. Lao Tzu believes since human nature is a part of the holistic universe, all human beings should follow the Way in order to be original people. If the ruler is enlightened by the
Way and Tao, he will not try to compete with others because the ruler realizes everything is ought to be moderate and appropriate for his people. Thus, Lao Tzu thinks that the ruler should be tolerant and flexible. However, Machiavelli insists that human nature is selfish and superficial. He analyzes how a great prince should be in political vision, but …show more content…
These limitations will gradually weaken self- confidence of people. People will forget how to overcome their own destiny. What Machiavelli keeps stressing on is ambition .He apparently expresses the prince can take advantage of his reputation and morality to enrich his nation. In conclusion, Lao Tzu and Machiavelli both expound the ideal type of ruler and government from their viewpoint of human nature and morality. Lao Tzu thinks the Way is the origin of everything. Even the ruler has to follow the Way so that he will not try to control his people. Nevertheless, Machiavelli believes a successful sovereign should be powerful. No matter what kind of government they suggest to be, balance keeps a vital key to the ruler. Since the ancient and peaceful society no longer exist, Machiavelli‘s suggestion is more effective. The politicians should always modify the laws to govern the people properly. It is attempt to control the people to obey their rules. Although Lao Tzu’s theory is more beautiful and harmony, it is too ideal to practice. On contrary, Machiavelli gives people more practical and reasonable suggestion because people are now in a much more complex